AMD's new A10-5800K "Trinity" APUs, launched earlier this week, are capable of extreme overclocking, something similarly-priced Intel processors can't claim, according to Adam Kozak, desktop products manager with the company. According to Kozak, the roughly $150 A10-5800K are capable of 6.50 GHz overclocked speeds, when augmented with liquid nitrogen cooling.

Overclocking capabilities give AMD's sub-$150 chips such as the A10-5800K, A8-5600K, and A6-5400K an edge over similarly-priced Intel chips. The cheapest overclockable chip from Intel's current lineup is the $220 Core i5-2500K. Based on the "Trinity" silicon, the A10-5800K ships with clock speeds of 3.80 GHz, which go up to 4.20 GHz with TurboCore. The chip features an unlocked base clock multiplier, which makes overclocking possible.

would love to see them actually benchmark anything at that speed rather than just switch it on and post a screen shot....

Click to expand...

That's not a stable speed, most likely stable enough for CPU-Z, just like any other WR clocks. Usually WR clocks and WR Benching clocks aren't at the same speeds. Just like the worlds strong bench presser we'll say, benches his max once. They don't say, "how about you use a more realistic, lower weight and do many reps", because that's not what he is there to do at that time.

No. Around 6G was about it as much as I recollect. You're probably thinking of Bulldozer which cracked 8G in the lead up to it's launch...obviously AMD have processor launches to a set PR/marketing routine

can't they promote the processor way better than this? that extreme overclocking potential is useless if you can't use it on daily basis. people who are going to use this processor 'properly' are not going to break world record everyday

I think the point of the article is, that at least for the price, it's capable of being overclocked, whereas the similar intel offering is quite a bit more expensive for the same feature, thats what i got from it.

Its a good thing intel has competition from amd, otherwise we would be paying possibly a lot more for intel chips? [Does that make sense?]

I think the point of the article is, that at least for the price, it's capable of being overclocked, whereas the similar intel offering is quite a bit more expensive for the same feature, thats what i got from it.

Click to expand...

+1 and exactly

Proof then as if it were required that this Pr bumph has a point ,the same point the article mentions YOU CAN OC THESE QUITE WELL, yeh its in big but needs some highlighting for some to understand, why people have to have a dig all the time at AMd without really even haveing a reason/point is starting to get annoying and tiresome.:shadedshu

your comments bad and you should feel bad about it, its an opinion without any actual point ie why in your opinion was this bad PR anyways(no i dont actually want to know but if your going to post at least bother with an actual reason)

Great achievement! But I would rather see it do 5ghz on air or aio watercooler(H50/H80/H100 and so on...). I don't see how AMD sees this as good PR.. It's like telling some one you have a car with 600hp! BUT it only keeps up with an average 300hp car...

EDIT: AWW the love/Hate relationship with me and AMD.. hehehe Tell me again how much better your product is on paper than theres?..hehehe

If this is every core overclocking on even LN2 then this is pretty damn AMAZING! Everyone has to take into account that most CPU overclocker's who break the world record are only oc'ing one core! To see this core break the 6.5ghz mark on all four cores within the boundries of LN2 would be a record within itself!

I think the whole point is that if a quad with great integrated graphics can reach that kind of speed on LN2...imagine what it can do on a good water / high end air setup. That chip costs less then $150.

EDIT: AWW the love/Hate relationship with me and AMD.. hehehe Tell me again how much better your product is on paper than theres?..hehehe

Click to expand...

Ever compile a full application from source using AMD's compiler optimizations? FMA3 and XOP bring a lot to the table when they're actually used, like two FP (single precision) ops per clock instead of just one per module. FMA3 is really what brings FP optimizations to forefront and next to nothing uses it.

These chips are not glory kings or speed demons. These chips are for someone that wants a LIGHT CHEAP gamer or HTPC/Small platform. If you want massive frame rates or low PI scores. Go with your gut and get intel SB/IB.

Intel has 10x the resources and they promote their processors with unstable LN2 overclocks too but nobody says nothing.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, is that in recent years AMD has prioritized high clocks and limited releases of benchmarks--generally ones that favor them. I mean, with the Preview's they authorized sites to do GPU benchmarks (with a suggestion of games) and overclocking tests, but told them they were not allowed to do tests of the CPU itself. This is clearly AMD covering up what they already know and embracing their successes. Everyone knows the iGPU of Trinity will be substantially better than the iGPU on IB, what people are worried about is an underpowered CPU and high power consumption.

With Trinity in particular the overclocking is almost irrelevant since it is primarily going to be an entry level CPU/GPU setup for budget gamers and a good alternative for HTPC's. Neither are categories of people that would want to be running extreme overclocks. There's also the fact that since the fiasco that was Netburst, people aren't fooled by high clock rates if the performance isn't there. Netburst really proved that just because you have a CPU running at double the clock rate of your competitor, it doesn't always make it better.

I think we all know what the current amd architecture is capable of. Those numbers never mean anything until theyve gone through the grinder.

Click to expand...

Someone has to fill that grinder, software doesn't write itself so it's in the hands of the developer to optimize their software and as a developer, I tend to be lazy. Not in the sense that I write bad code, but weighing the costs and benefits. I've converted some FP calculations in code at work to run as a lower-precision integer operation just because integer ops run faster than floating-point and the level of precision that FP offers isn't necessary.

How much slower do you think 25.35 + 32.55 runs than 2535 + 3255? The only time that turns into a FP number is when the user sees it. Otherwise multiplying a integer will be fast since all you have to do is shift the bits and maybe add a single number.